Did Obama Just Lose My Vote?

This is serious. I’ve been saying for quite a while that Obama has not yet earned my vote and I am quite happy voting for Nader to help strengthen efforts toward a multi-party system. However, I voted for Obama in the primary here in Texas and was excited to vote for the first viable African-American candidate in the U.S.

Also, this is the most important election in years, if for no other reason than the necessity to populate the Supreme Court with judges who will protect civil liberties unlike those Bush has appointed or McCain would appoint.

While I have continuously lambasted the lack of character Hillary Clinton and her husband have shown during the primary season, I would not say I have been sipping “Obama Kool-Aid.” I understand that his “Change We Can Believe In” slogan is only as effective as his ability - to put it simply - to get things done. And politicians have to work together to accomplish progress. (Unless you’re President Bush, in which case you use the 9/11 attacks and existence of terrorism to scare Americans and politicians alike into marching behind your efforts to make the U.S. more of an authoritarian regime than ever before. Ugh, the thought makes it difficult to keep my coffee and chocolate granola cereal down.)

Obama is a politician first. With a degree in Government, I never lose sight of this. While Democrats fall in love (and Republicans fall in line) we must not forget that politicians must operate within the existing confines of the Washington Dance. This will inevitably lead to widespread disapointment with Obama, when he’s president, because he simply cannot please everyone and will have to compromise in order to accomplish certain goals. A president must make decisions when no option is the right one. It’s a hard gig - the hardest one in the world; I thoroughly recognize this.

However, much of my free time this week has been spent trolling the internet for a reasonable justification for Obama’s approval of the new FISA Act of 2008. Of course, I already have my fair share of underlying bitterness because the Democrats have performed disgracefully since taking control of the Congress. They are inexplicably banner ankle-grabbers again and again despite Bush’s record disapproval ratings. Yes, they do not want to seem weak on national security, but they are greatly underestimating the American people’s desire to have their civil liberties protected in this era of heightened danger.

Congressional members have far more concern with the length of their federal careers than casting the appropriate vote - rendering them impotent in the areas of war profiteering (Diane Feinstein’s husband is a defense contractor and why she still enjoys support in California, I have no idea. BTW, she vote AYE on FISA as well), criminal activity at the executive level (erasing emails, Karl Rove and Harriet Miers refusing to testify, Valerie Plame, fixing EPA reports and much, much more), reforming health care and national energy policy, policing unfair lending practices and allowing the establishment of a credit industry that works against the American people, not for them. It inexplicable that Congress has utterly failed to inhibit Bush’s harmful activities when the majority of Americans do not favor his policies in the slightest. It is frustrating and goddamned ridiculous.

So, Obama is Change personified, right?

Apparently, not so. Yes, I have read his blog on The Huffington Post regarding his FISA vote, which proffered no substantial logic for his approval of the bill. A few gems from the piece are:

Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I’ve chosen to support the current compromise. I do so with the firm intention — once I’m sworn in as president — to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future.

Democracy cannot exist without strong differences. And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That’s ok. But I think it is worth pointing out that our agreement on the vast majority of issues that matter outweighs the differences we may have.

The problem with our agreement on the vast majority of issues is that his vote on the FISA bill illustrates his inherent weakness and willingness to compromise when no comprise is needed simply to prove (which he fails to do with this vote) that he is strong on national security. This “aye” was unnecessary, dangerous, wrong, hurtful and potentially, yes, a deal breaker. Especially when assessing the guts of the bill, along with those who voted against it. On The Huffpo website, David Bromwich provides a very concise, yet in-depth look at the governmental powers granted with this legislation. I strongly recommend reading the blog and the readers’ comments below.

Among the senators who opposed the vote are Biden, Boxer, Dodd, Clinton, Byrd, Durbin, Feingold, Harkin, Kerry, Leahy, Reid and Levin.

The bottom line is that political agreements with a candidate are moot if the candidate does not have the political strength or fortitude to operate in accordance with that agreement.

Of course, Obama’s folding on FISA was a political calculation - that’s practically consensus. And I wish he could offer an honest defense of his vote; but, alas, this theater of election season would lead any such candor to damage the candidate.

Obama will be elected president barring any unforeseen, intensely damaging and highly unlikely circumstances. Though the media portrays the presidential race as close - it is a facade. McCain’s chances of succeeding in November, in my opinion, are around 1 in 5. Incumbent parties do not win when the economy is in the tank - mentally or not (and it’s not mental, Phil, when milk, bread, cereal, gas and all other necessities are more and more expensive and the dollar is weaker and weaker). McCain is not galvanizing and voter trust of most election issues points toward Obama. I wish Obama the best and will be hopeful as he takes his oath of office.

Furthermore, I applaud Obama’s willingness to work across the aisle and understand there will be areas in which he will break with Liberals. Support of faith-based community initiatives, for one (and this coming from an agnostic).

The FISA Act, however, is so detrimental to democracy itself, my respect for not just Obama himself, but the very idea of Obama has been irreparably damaged. I would encourage hardcore Obama supporters to keep this particular vote of his in mind when daydreaming of the days to come as he takes on the heavy mantle of President of the United States of America. Perfection at this level does not exist and any romance with a candidate will certainly abate over time.

I would never cast a vote for McFlip-Flop, nor would I ever stay home and waste a voting opportunity. Also, I am a thorough, complete supporter of a multi-party system. While I wanted to vote for Obama - and was excited to vote for him - my decision was not cast in stone. It still is not cemented. However, the odds I would pull the lever in support of him this November are greatly diminished. Truthfully, I am ever more looking in Nader’s direction.

If Obama’s political contributions continue to decline, I encourage him to address his FISA ‘08 support with increased seriousness. This is no small issue for those of us who follow politics and government activity.

This weekend, I plan on purchasing Obama’s two books and will begin reading them with a large grain of salt. Perhaps this will allow me some insight behind this recent mind-boggling decision of his.

As of this point, Obama is not Hope and he is not Change We Can Believe In. He is merely Better Than Bush, but isn’t everybody else?

Freaky Friday: John Edwards & Karl Rove to Debate

Did anyone catch this last Friday? The Buffalo News has learned that the University of Buffalo intends to include in its Distinguished Speaker Series a debate between John Edwards and Karl Rove on September 26. John Edwards and Karl Rove. Naturally, my mind immediately searches for the nearest comparison to such an unpredictable and unlikely competition of the minds (I use that term loosely).

The fastest duo to surface is, of course, Dopey vs. Beelzebub. But that’s too easy. I’m looking for something more nuanced. More apropos. Barbie vs. Cobra Commander? No…. Nemo vs. Ursula? No…. Luke Sykwalker vs. Jabba the Hutt? No! Not even close. John Edwards has no Force.

Gumby vs. Squealer from Animal Farm. That’s it.

Yes, I remember that John Edwards is a former trial attorney, but the images of him getting smoked by Dick Cheney in 2004 are seared into my brain. And while Karl Rove may have the morality of a dung beetle, his ability to misrepresent facts with a straight face is supernatural and would require Edwards to acquire an encyclopedic knowledge of politically-related statistics and their sources to properly refute Rove’s machinations. My not-so-amateur prediction is that John ain’t got the stuff. And I’m being kind.

If the debate is televised, I will certainly perform the masochistic duty of viewing the event - with a fist firmly planted between my teeth. Naturally, I try to avoid having Rove’s visage offend my home from the television and relegate my involvement with him by reading his erroneous comments online. Blech.

In the meantime, I’m going to entertain myself with paint.net and make fun graphics with hopeful themes.

john edwards crushes rove's head

I made Rove’s eyes red, but they may be too small to tell.

And did you see the headline on The Huffington Post this morning that Rep. Henry Waxman is considering legislation that would prevent a White House employee from being paid by taxpayer money to work on political affairs? He might wait until Obama is elected to launch this legislative attempt.

I’m encouraged by the possibility that Obama will roll back a number of powers Bush and Cheney concentrated at the executive level. McCain, of course, would not. Checks and balances are so silly, aren’t they?!

And one last tidbit of morning news - let’s give Howard Wolfson a big round of applause and wish him good luck as he joins Fox News. In a way I get it - he wants to bring a democratic voice to the network. But I also think he’s selling his soul to do it. Although, he seemed comfortable bending the truth when he worked for Hillary, so maybe he’ll fit right in.

Hall of Shame: S.C. Approves “I Believe” License Plates

I make no bones about my disappointment with the rise in religious fundamentalism in this country and how detrimental such developments are, mostly having to do with failed abortion-only policies, the rise of anti-intellectualism, the accepting of intolerant and unconstitutional bans on gay marriage, and the promotion of power of men like George W. Bush, Pat Robertson, John Hagee and the late Jerry Falwell. Though, the rise in fundamentalism likely portends its downfall as progress is an unstoppable force, a law in South Carolina took effect yesterday that expresses the deep inability for many Americans to reconcile the brainwashing of their childhood with the reason and common sense their adulthoods.

South Carolina now offers “I Believe” license plates at $4 to $6.

Such a license plate is an example of a governmental endorsement of a religion and a shameful illustration of the domination of unfounded mythology on our society.

Ask yourself whether the South Carolina state legislature would support a license plate expressing support of Islam, Judaism, Atheism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Scientology or Wicca. Right.

The ACLU and American Jewish Congress are considering action over this huge legal disappointment in South Carolina (which, by the way, failed in Florida in April). Here at politicalmpressions (which is just me), we wholemindedly support their efforts to have this state-sponsored endorsement of Christianity revoked.

Had this happened in Texas, I myself would raise my voice to its greatest heights to help preserve the separation of church and state.

Silver Lining: Marcus Aurelius points out in his comment on Think Progress, “It’s nice to know who the morons are when you’re out driving.”

Here We Go: June 19, Americans United for Separation of Church and State “asks a judge to stop the state from making the plates and rule that the law allowing them violates the First Amendment.” For more, read here. Aaaahh, I love the smell of progress and common sense.

Appropriate Immigration Reform: Stop The Hate and Fear-Mongerring

A study, commissioned by the Americans for Immigration Reform Task Force (part of the Greater Houston Partnership), found that if 8.1 undocumented workers (otherwise knows as illegal immigrants) left overnight, the U.S. would lose $1.8 trillion in annual spending, according to today’s Houston Chronicle. While the task force has a vested interest in highlighting the detrimental effects of the absence of illegal immigrants, the study presents a merited discussion on the positive aspects of their inclusion in American society.

There has been much fear-mongering in the media over the ethics of allowing undocumented workers within our borders and workplaces. They’re taking jobs from American citizens! There are criminals among them! They don’t speak English and will marry our daughters! The lack of reasoning among those who cherry-pick statistics and facts and then use them as scare tactics for either political purposes or sensationalist media strategies is appalling.

While comprehensive immigration reform should undoubtedly be a priority of our legislative leaders, simply building a wall and kicking out “aliens” would not only NOT address our current problems, it would have a hugely negative impact on the farming, construction, restaurant, meatpacking and many other industries already under severe economic strain. Unfortunately, undocumented workers can be at a tremendous disadvantage in the workplace, receiving unfair wages and facing dangerous working conditions - a much more cogent motivation for reform than the “drain on our economy” argument used by the media crazies and right-wing politicians looking for that next leg up during election season.

The vast majority of our families were at one time undocumented and arrived in the U.S. without adhering to our strict immigration laws. Truth be told, the United States has a strong economy, capable of absorbing the millions of illegal immigrants - a large percentage of whom have been in here for years. Much of the media coverage and the shouting from the right wing is simply unfounded propaganda.

Anna Quindlen wrote in Newsweek last August that Mayor Bloomberg “testified before a Senate committee that they (undocumented workers) are the linchpin of his city’s economy.” She went on to write that new businesses are started by Latinos at a rate three times the national average.

Immigration reform cannot simply focus on kicking them out, having them pay a fine and then they can return. This is a very short-sighted non-solution that would do more harm than good. The path to becoming a citizen must be cheaper, shorter and less bureaucratic. Only then will immigrants opt for the legal route rather than the back alleys. This will also help separate the well-intentioned hard workers (that make up the vast majority of illegal immigrants) from the few bad eggs.

For any of us to claim that the U.S. and the possibilities available here are ours and ours alone is absurd. Numbers, studies and statistics are continually manipulated by all sides for ulterior motives, leaving us the individual duty of researching and judging for ourselves where the solutions lay. Talking heads are merely hurdles for the truth. Unreasonable fears implanted in today’s society prevent many from appreciating the enormous cultural and economic value undocumented workers present. For example, the contribution by these workers to Social Security annually is in the billions, yet they themselves will not benefit from these payments.

I live in Texas and think we should try to extend a helping hand rather than flout the ideals that once made our country great. Let’s be cool about this, people. Get of the ineffective Hate Train and stop yelling, “Off with their heads!” These tactics have been historical failures. Undocumented workers will not stop coming, wall or no. And if we offer a voice and protection and fairness in exchange for the meeting of reasonable, legal demands, only then will the situation benefit all parties involved.

Tax Evasion Worse Than Murdering/Torturing Dogs

Michael Vick was sentenced to 23 months for charges related to helping dogs attack each other, killing dogs, and treating dogs inhumanely over and over again.

Wesley Snipes was just sentenced to 3 years for not filing his taxes 3 years in a row.

Um…Does anyone else feel like blowing chunks over the fact that the government cares more about sucking a few million bucks cash (as if it will matter when the national debt is almost $10 trillion) from a celebrity than deterring people from carrying out vicious savagery against man’s best friend?

A lot of somebodies somewhere need a come-to-jesus meetin’. This is sickeningly ridiculous.

Prosecuting the Bush Administration

This morning is a beautiful morning, if a little chilly. And it only improved when I clicked on The Huffington Post and read the headline “Obama Would ‘Immediately Review’ Potential Of Crimes In Bush White House.”

The HuffPo basically provided an excerpt from The Philadelphia Daily News’ Will Bunch’s Attywood column in which Obama said:

What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that’s already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can’t prejudge that because we don’t have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You’re also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we’ve got too many problems we’ve got to solve.

So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment — I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General — having pursued, having looked at what’s out there right now — are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it’s important– one of the things we’ve got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing betyween really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity. You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I’ve said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law — and I think that’s roughly how I would look at it.

Now, there have been plenty of crimes committed by the Bush administration, whether it was illegal domestic spying, no-bid contract assignment in Iraq, torture, the illegal destruction of mountains of documentation and more. It would give me untold satisfaction if Congress or the next administration conducted effective investigations of the goings-on under Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. I have little faith that such investigations will proceed as most politicians are in the re-election business and obviously care more about the preservation of their careers than carrying out their fundamental duties as lawmakers and designated check-and-balancers.

Furthermore, I have not allotted my general election vote as of yet and am seriously considering marking the box next to Nader’s name. If Obama gives serious commitment to investigating criminal activity in the Bush White House, he will greatly increase the odds I will vote for him. But, he wants to be a uniter and that probably entails glossing over most of the illegal activity or going after smaller potatoes than those at the top of the administration. Also, Bush will most likely strategically hand out pardons, as he did with Scooter Libby, that will help prevent investigation of his activities the way his father did at the end of his term regarding his participation in the Iran Contra affair.

It’s enough to make me want to win the lottery and buy an island in the South Pacific on which to live and wear a sarong for the rest of my days.

You know what else makes me want to go native among palm trees? This comment on The Huffington Post:

“In the end, elitist liberals are impotent and embittered by that fact. They cling to fantasies such as prosecuting righteous, upstanding American patriots. They fall back on empty rhetoric such as “I’ll fight for the common man, because they know in their own feeble, prejudiced minds, that they don’t have the courage to fight anything evil or anything with the capacity to fight back.

They denigrate core beliefs such as Christianity, because they are empty vessels, devoid of any faith other than weak dependence on the wished-for power of twisted liberal government to FORCE their will upon those made of real and stronger stuff. They are deathly afraid of true faith because they have none. They are terrified of tools such as guns because they generally don’t know how to use them to feed themselves and are too afraid to use them to defend themselves.

They are everything in reverse that Obama tried and failed to heap disdain upon with his elitist mumblings in San Fran. No, we know who they are and what they lack; and they know we know, and that’s what really destroys them.”

To which I responded, complete with typos:

“wow. you are seriously living in fantasy-land. and your one-sided, close-mindedness makes me shudder because your zeal presents you prime meat for the those politicians who would take advantage of your brainwashed, sheep-like desire to follow and believe the lies you are fed.

Committing torture does not make you a patriot. It makes you an immoral hypocrite.

We have faith. Faith in reason, logic, common sense. Not unfounded fairytales only constructed as a tool to control. It is a good thing to question everything. And I’m not deathly afraid of anything except profound ignorance.

And I’m from Texas, honey. I KNOW how to use a gun.

Remember, discussion and debate is always a good thing. No one is right on ALL the issues and when you are certain you are right and no one else, it is time to retire. For your mind is petrified, you can progress no more and are no longer useful.”

I should proofread, I know, I know…

Castle Law Questions

Yes, it is legal in many states to shoot to death someone who threatens not just your life, but your property as well. It’s called the Castle Law. Seems easy enough, right? Criminals’ rights have far exceeded those of victims for years. If it were up to me, we’d have some crazy medieval punishments that would no doubt deter illegal activity. I’m serious! Bring back the rack and lets strip some bamboo for whippin’ - no law is too unusual and too cruel if it’s effective. After all, we’re guaranteed the right to pursue happiness and if some impedes that right, they forfeit their right to participate in society. Duh!

And the Castle Law seems perfectly credible when taken into the context of assigning rights to potential victims over potential criminals. Sure, it goes without saying you should be able to defend yourself if someone threatens your personal wellbeing or that of someone else. What about the wellbeing of your property? Your Cadillac Escalade and great-grandma’s pearls or the HD Big Screen that convinces you of the presence of angels?

I don’t know. I’m having a hard time figuring out where I stand on the issue and here’s why:

On Saturday, two teenage boys wanted to get a closer look at party down the street. When they entered a neighbor’s yard to get closer look, the old man shot one of them. When they got back to their house, one of the boy’s mothers drove them to the hospital, but on their way there, a drunk driver hit them head on and killed the mother!!! Now, that is messed up!

In November of last year, authorities decided not to file charges against a man who shot and killed two men in Pasadena, TX who were robbing is neighbor’s house. He was on the phone with 911 and kept telling the dispatcher he would not let the men get away with it. Why didn’t he just shoot them in the legs? The authorities were on their way.

And us cowboys in Texas aren’t the only ones with this law. A lot of other states have these laws too and many people think if we all used deadly force, there would be less crime. I’m all for harsher punishments that are physical in nature and beating the crap out of criminals - I even want to commit vigilante justice on quite a common basis, but something is weird about deadly force being meted out by anyone for property crimes - why can’t people keep paint ball guns on hand instead of shot guns. Doesn’t pass the smell test… I’m going to have to think about this one some more…

Another Case for Legalized Marijuana - Peace for Mexico

According to John P. Walters, White House Drug Czar, Americans are contributing $8.6 billion to Mexican drug traffickers through marijuana consumption - or 62 percent of the nearly $14 billion sent south of the border because of American drug consumers (Dallas Morning News, 2/22/2008).

“What you are choosing to do when you consume these dead-end drugs, particularly marijuana, is you’re choosing to buy the guns that kill people not just along the border, but throughout Mexico, guns that kill law enforcement authorities, civilians and threaten fundamental Mexican institutions,” Mr. Walters added. “It seems not too much to ask these consumers who are making these people powerful, ‘Is that something you’re OK with?’ “

Well, having lived in Austin and consumed the occasional blunt or bowl or what have you, and knowing many, many, many others who have done the same, I feel comfortable commenting on this as a knowledgeable source as well as good-time-lovin’ gal. Good limited government it would be to legalize marijuana and regulate it and tax it and lower the criminal penalties for its consumption. Sentences can be lower for gun crimes and child rape! A word is coming to mind. Oh yeah - Bassackward!

It is a dreadful shame the tragic amount of violence perpetrated in Mexico and, hopefully, Felipe Calderon’s policies will be an effective barrier to the drug cartels’ success. Issuing guilt trips to American weed smokers, however, most likely won’t be.

Marijuana is scientifically proven to mitigate the negative physical results of chemotherapy and, yet, the Supreme Court will not legalize the drug federally for such benefits. Yet, the harvest, possession, consumption and cultivation of peyote for religious (unproven, unscientific) use is legally sanctioned.

I don’t think we should criminalize the use of peyote, but let’s apply drug laws reasonably and rationally. Legalizing marijuana will have its problems, but with education and information, would have a much more positive outcome worth investigating and considering - including cutting off Mexican drug gangs off at the knees.

Si se puede, biotch!!

USA Today Reporter Found In Contempt For Not Revealing Sources

According to the New York Times, a judge wants reporters to reveal their sources in stories regarding “a former Army scientist’s possible role in the 2001 anthrax attacks.” The judge wants the sources revealed in an effort by the scientist to prove a defamation lawsuit against his alleged accusers.

This recent trend toward judicial attacks on the journalistic protection will have an increasingly negative effect on the media’s ability to appropriately provide information to the public. Hidden sources have long been the lifeblood of an industry meant to shine the light on dark corners of criminal behavior and the misuse of the publics’ trust.

Sure, the media has fallen down on the job, recently, posting pictures of Britney’s giner rather than providing updates on the war in Afghanistan. Sure, the media has tried to solidify power by steering public fears and perceptions hither and yon according to their whims.

But that doesn’t mean we have to attack to the very foundation of honorable and essential investigative journalism by altering the basic tenant of the protection of sources. Such decrees will further send the media into the realm of irrelevant and useless. Like Britney’s giner.

German Arms Co. Halts Cooperation w/ Blackwater

It’s good to  know that not everyone is so money hungry, they’re willing to look past the U.S. government’s outsourcing of the war in Iraq. German arms manufacturer Heckler & Koch says it will end its relationship with mercenary firm Blackwater (legally answerable to no one, btw) after a media report in Germany that the Blackwater was using H&K’s arms in Iraq. The report went on to say that the German government had not issued permission to H&K to provide Blackwater with arms.

Aaaahhh, we don’t need not steenking laws! Perhaps one day when the birds once again sing and The White House no longer subverts the American legal system for its own gain, indictments will naturally gravitate to all those involved in the no-bid contract work in Iraq (Halliburton, Cheney, Bush, Blackwater, etc.). Hopefully, this will not happen before Goober Bush is out so he can’t pardon ever Tom, Dick and Shithead (pronounced Shi-theed) he helped make rich with his baseless war.

Iraq, Whitehouse in Negotiations for Long-term US Military Presence

We discovered a few months ago Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki signed an agreement, called U.S.-Iraq Declaration of Principles for Friendship and Cooperation, that would open negotiations towards a U.S. military presence in Iraq for an undetermined length. The democrats, especially Sen. Clinton during the debates, have recently become more vocal in their disapproval of the agreement, which would require the consent of the Iraqi Parliament, but not the U.S. Congress. They also claim that this is an effort to cement the U.S. presence in Iraq despite possible efforts by the next president to withdraw troops.

The official word is that the agreement would simply redefine the U.S. military role in Iraq and would not bind the next president’s decision capabilities, as well as replace the expiring U.N. mandate regarding coalition activities in Iraq.

Are you with me so far? Does this pass the smell test??

In a word, No.

First of all, the administration and Iraqi government want negotiations concluded around July and an agreement complete with signatures by the time U.S. elections arrive.

Secondly, and this is well, significant, the Center for Public Integrity reports the President Bush and his top officials “made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.” It is common knowledge without the CPI report that the administration issues false statements (the CIA leak case, Att. Gen. Gonzales’ involvement in the firing of many U.S. attorneys, just to name a mere fraction).

Fact: the administration if full of lies and liars. If the administration were a witness in a criminal trial, it would be indicted for perjury. If lightning struck liars, The White house would be a sea of smoking embers. There isn’t a bar of soap in all the world big enough to clean those dirty, rotten, fallacious mouths. Basically, we have a pants on fire situation here. Hell, he learned it from his father who tried to sell us a bill of goods on the level of the deficit during Sr.’s campaign in ‘92. Guess it runs in the family.

The administration thinks Congress is simply playing politics and the U.S. population is too retarded to understand the means behind their ends. Karl Rove and Dick Cheney have better judgment than we do. Rumsfeld had better judgment than we do. Condoleeza Rice, for all her irrelevance, has better judgment than we do. We should just sit back and drink our Coors Light and watch Nascar and trust Bushie to take care of this war for us like good little patriotic citizens.

I’d rather choke on a hot dog.

Of course Cheney, uh…I mean Bush, wants to establish an agreement with the Iraqis before the next president can come in and stomp all over his withered legacy. He has convinced himself, to the point of psychosis, no doubt, that his intentions (not decisions based on REALITY) determine the outcome. A democrat with the same access to information he has will make far worse decisions than he would (though how that could happen when they would undoubtedly have better judgment, I’ve no idea).

Hopefully, those senators on the campaign trail can see their way back to Capitol Hill for a moment to either find some existing legislation or slap some together that would require their participation in this “agreement” with Iraq.

I understand we have just under a year left before he’s out, people. But realize that it will be one nail-biting, hair-pulling year. And I can’t wait for the roller coaster ride of pardons at the end! It’s sure to make Clinton’s and Bush Sr. before him look as innocent as one of those pukey Precious Moments figurines.

It’s almost enough to make me start praying. Almost. Not quite, though.

UPDATE: While the Washington Post says there is no historical precedent for such agreements to go before Congress,  The Boston Globe has issued an article with a different view, saying “After World War II, for example - when the United States gave security commitments to Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia, New Zealand, and NATO members - Presidents Truman and Eisenhower designated the agreements as treaties requiring Senate ratification. In 1985, when President Ronald Reagan guaranteed that the US military would defend the Marshall Islands and Micronesia if they were attacked, the compacts were put to a vote by both chambers of Congress.”

There is a reason a democracy commands the participation of many. To trust the steerage of our country to few, who are not only untrustworthy when it comes to the simple act of telling the truth, but proven poor decision-makers, is insanity-defined.